"is she talking about turnout percentage of registered voters ‘Remain’?"

I don't think she knows herself. Your understanding is correct. It is that simple.

Instead of being behind bars, Tony Blair appeared on TV this morning ("I AM working with Angela Merkel")(?!) and commented that were a similar referendum to be conducted within any other European member state at present the likely outcome would be the same.

Mmm. If it's such a happy ship, why does the crew all want to go ashore?

That is absolutely NOT true. Nothing of immediate material consequence to the UK in general, Scotland in particular, has changed since Thursday’s referendum on EU membership. Nothing. And the status quo as regards the UK’s membership position will remain for the next two years at least.

That’s four whole years EU membership for Scotland which Nicola Sturgeon claims the Scots were ‘promised’ as an inducement to them to vote in favour of maintaining their position as members of the United Kingdom.

Who can possibly have made that promise to Scotland (in 2014), when David Cameron had already promised very publicly (Jan. 2013) that the United Kingdom (including, of course, Scotland), would be offered a ‘Yes/No – In/out’ referendum on EU membership within four years, i.e. by the end of 2017 at the latest?

Whatever promises Nicola Sturgeon may claim Scotland was seduced by, the fact of the matter is that in 2014 Scotland will have voted in respect of their UK membership in the certain knowledge that a UK referendum (outcome unknowable) would take place no more than three years down the line.

Ergo, in voting to remain part of the UK, Scotland voted in anticipation of a referendum to which they would be a party, but whose result would depend, not on their attitude uniquely, but on the voting disposition of the UK overall.

Neither Nicola Sturgeon nor any of her disaffected constituents can claim ignorance in this matter. To protest that, against their will, they are now facing a leap into the unknown, when they have previously, and knowingly, taken just such a leap, is hypocrisy pure and simple. That they weren’t paying attention, apparently, is nobody else’s fault.

"This case embodies the fundamental collision between the duty of our Government to protect its citizens from the dangers caused by child pornography with the implied right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment," he wrote.

"Notably, the Government already has found that protecting its citizens outweighs the First Amendment's right of freedom of speech . . .

Is that on a personal or public level? There IS a difference. And that difference is exposed by what he went on to say:

"It was not the result I wanted – nor the outcome that I believed is best for the country I love."

His personal beliefs are expressed subsequently and separately, which means that the result of a free referendum was not that desired by the sitting Prime Minister, who will have been less than impartial before, during and after the process.

If DC wanted the country as a whole to vote 'remain' for political reasons, then we must conclude (as many had already done before they entered the polling booth even) that those motivations were not guided by the best interests of the people of the UK but other factors besides.

Those are the 'reasons' the MSM did not, would not, and will not tell us about. Never mind. They've been 'sussed' in any case.

'Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte told parliament on Monday night he did not back forcing Britain to quit the European Union as quickly as possible. The country is in serious crisis, he said, and piling on the pressure is not an option.'

Of course it is. But here comes the OMG moment:

‘I agree with everyone who says that it must happen “as quickly as possible”,’ he said. ‘But that involves two elements – speed and actually being possible.’

Is he daring to suggest that Brexit is NOT actually possible? We've just had a one-day civil war, in a manner of speaking. Too much filibustering and we risk having a second, which won't be fought in the ballot box.

Being the cynic I am, I do not interpret Cameron's side-step as an honourable retreat. I suspect that, knowing the intricacies of the Lisbon articles (i.e. no. 50), his resignation was deliberately intended to buy time.

If two years is not sufficient to 'do the math' and arrange to sign the papers then WTF are we paying our civil servants for? (Maybe they should 'head hunt' Larry Silverstein, as they did the Canadian governor of the Bank of England. Larry snatched the twin towers from the New York Port Authority in a matter of months - but that's a 'whole other issue', as they might say over there).

Despite the fine words from Westminster in an attempt to butter everyone's parsnips, I suspect (indeed I am concerned) that all of them 'upstairs' will attempt to drag this thing out for as long as humanly possible, perhaps even in the hope that by the time the nominal cut off date arrives, the populace will have forgotten what they voted for and want another referendum in order to be reminded!

Extracts from DC's Prime Ministerial speech to the House of Commons, 22 Feb. 2016 (from about 11:36 in the link above):

“An idea has been put forward that if the country votes to leave we could have a second renegotiation and perhaps another referendum.

“But such an approach also affords more points about democracy, diplomacy and legality. This is a straight democratic decision: staying in or leaving and no government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper.

“And for a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would not just be wrong, it would be undemocratic.

“If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about and that is to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit and the British People would rightly expect that that should start straight away.

“Let me be absolutely clear about how this works. It triggers a two year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit.”

So Dave does the wrong, undemocratic thing and promptly resigns - great. And despite the British people 'rightly expecting 'that the exit process should start straight away it ain't gonna.

Do we still live in a democracy even. Can DC be held to account, as a Prime Minister who has singularly failed to live up to his responsibilities? No. He's just scraped his own plate clean and buggered off!

Responsibilities........nay Martin Duty! Here is the so called honourable man who gave the country the referendum his party desired. He and his cohorts decided to go for it,presumably thinking it was a sure thing that could not fail,after all the conservative euro sceptics were loonies in his/their eyes. How wrong could you be eh? Turns out more than half of the electorate were loonies. He is the one who should start article 50 rolling and he knows it. As the auto destruct Labour Party try to shut Corbyn up and regain control of whatever power the Labour Party has left,they too are cut from the same cloth as yer man Cameron. I knew the fight would be dirty I just forgot how very dirty it could be (McCann watchers take note to the length the state will persue it's ends) But it may come as a surprise to the Labour Party just how in touch or not they are with the people who vote them in. You really couldn't make this stuff up,could you?

Turner: They've got it. This is where they ship from. You play games, I told them a story.

Higgins: How d'you know they'll print it?

Last Thursday the UK engaged in a referendum, the outcome of which is NOT legally binding. We told the government a story, but how do we know they'll print it?

Latest soundings from Brussels reveal a conciliatory attitude on the part of German and other representatives. David Cameron has announced, while in Brussels, that he is a democrat, and that the will of the people will be carried out.

BUT

Cameron is no longer Prime Minister. The FIRST THING he did was launch his ejector seat in the knowledge that responsibility for initiating article 50 was his. That now passes to his successor apparently.

In principle this introduces an unexpected hiatus into the process, considered 'frustrating' by other EU members according to the media. Angela Merkel has also indicated that there can be no preliminary negotiations in anticipation of this action (how harsh).

AND YET

Lord Heseltine (interviewed on TV this evening) has spoken of a progression whereby a general election is accompanied by Boris and co. doing the real calculations, on the basis of which a SECOND referendum is put to the public and a mandate returned with the new governing party. In their sovereign position, they could then proceed to enact article 50 (or not as the case may be). His proposal was conspicuously biased toward 'not' of course.

While this may sound like so much wishful thinking on the part of a political dinosaur, the signs are there nevertheless.

Merkel's attitude, while appearing vindictive, may have an altogether different purpose. Disabling negotiation immediately consolidates the status quo, so that, should the incoming PM decide, irrespective of any new mandate, NOT to initiate article 50, then no further time need be lost in reinstatement - like putting the plug back in the socket without having to change the damaged fuse.

Cameron has already intimated the degree of 'give' that might be called for from the EU in order for A N Other PM to get away with selling the public a second pup from the same litter.

Remember: the referendum result is NOT legally binding, and the man who should be picking up the tab is no longer in the restaurant.

Unless his name is either Johnson or Gove, the new incumbent could reasonably contend that responsibility for unleashing article 50 was not his either. Legally, therefore, the whole of last Thursday's endeavour could simply be abandoned as an unfinished project.

Such a manoeuvre might produce a constitutional crisis, but so what? We're facing one of those already. There's always a solution eventually. How big a risk is 17 million voters being pissed off when 16 million are pissed off already. (What's a million between friends?)

(Looks very robust for a 4 yr. old, but see picture of left ankle showing scabs - from a recent burn?)

"Then man attempted to sweep Chase from the lift before dragging him across the hotel corridor floor by his legs."

Bringing the opposite end of his body into contact with the carpet!

I strongly suspect this and all the recent Freud accusations are all part of a 'canvas of context' being painted in support of OG closing down with the conclusion: 'abduction by paedophile(s) unknown.'

And bless me if we did not hear EXACTLY this scenario mentioned in discussion with Andrew Neil on TV earlier today. Despite its being camouflaged as 'conspiracy theory', Cameron's own words to the House following Prime Minister's Questions fuel just these suspicions.

“Do we still live in a democracy even. Can DC be held to account, as a Prime Minister who has singularly failed to live up to his responsibilities?”

“Responsibilities........nay Martin Duty” (Bampots 28.06@20:41)

@21:12

“My mistake. I stand fully corrected. No complaints.”

If your very gentlemanly apology had to do with ‘responsibilities’ v ‘Duty’, would you please be so kind as to expand a little at your convenience on the contextual difference between the two in this instance?

The quoted Bampots’ post was excellent as have been all of yours on this topic.

Martin Roberts 29.06@08:52, 08:59

Sorry, ‘poked’ the wrong key.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12956-will-it-go-round-in-circles

I found the sarcasm in the quoted sentence rather agreeable, as I did Pat Condell’s presentation at the link you posted earlier, particularly his last word and gesture (in fact, I wrote to someone in the USA shortly thereafter as follows:

Instantly, I am being tempted to bring up the topic of ‘meaningful coincidences’ I was pondering yesterday while peeling potatoes: several seemingly unusual manifestations in and of (I think) your posts and in those of another have been on my mind for a while. This would be OT here and is left in my notes therefore for the present.

Martin Roberts 29.06@10:13

“Bringing the opposite end of his body into contact with the carpet!”

Well spotted!

“I strongly suspect this and all the recent Freud accusations are all part of a 'canvas of context' being painted in support of OG closing down with the conclusion: 'abduction by paedophile(s) unknown.'”

Spot on!

Beware: I strongly suspect that TC is watching…

Speaking about ‘Merciful’ Freud, would it not be just not to omit the qualifier ‘alleged’ when referring to his alleged ‘improprieties’? ‘Innocent till proven guilty’, they tell us.

Perhaps of interest are the relevant KM’s recollections in her book. The book is a treasure trove. It reads as if it’s been written, as you rightly remarked elsewhere, as a defence brief against the charges that had not been brought (not verbatim). The possible charges, but not the book as far as I know, have been evolving over the years however…

Never liked the man. More to tell but call it ‘intuition’ (or a ‘meaningful coincidence’) for now.

The money made on Brexit must’ve filled someone’s coffers if they were big enough. We are unlikely ever to find out how much but any info on this would be appreciated.

‘responsibilities’ v ‘Duty’, would you please be so kind as to expand a little at your convenience on the contextual difference between the two in this instance?

My answer to Bampots was intended as light-hearted. However I am inclined to accept there is a difference between, 'responsiblity' and 'duty' in this instance. This from section 14.2 of the book, The Law, Sales and Marketing:

"An obligor who delegates a duty (and becomes a delegator) does not thereby escape liability for performing the duty himself. The obligee of the duty may continue to look to the obligor for performance unless the original contract specifically provides for substitution by delegation"

Basically, if one delegates a responsibility it may be viewed as 'given away', whereas a delegated duty is only lent. That's my take on it anyway.

No it didn't. It voted as part of the UK (your not independent yet Nicola).

And those PLP members who know better than the distributed membership of the party as a whole...well lads/lassies, JC was chosen as your party leader according to your party's constitution (you know, the one you previously participated in agreeing).

You may owe your parliamentary seat to your constituency voters, including non-party members, but again, it is the party that paid for your campaign in the first place.

Maybe we were both right... .he had a responsibility and a duty! Being responsible implies accountability to the remain camp whereas duty implies an imperative to action with no quarter given to its execution? Basically its his shit and he should clean it up!

"In the UK, the press falsely linked Maria to the missing child Maddie McCann in what became a text book moral panic about Gypsy child stealing."

"There has been no kidnapping, no robbery, no trafficking and no money changed hands,” says Katsavos.

"Konstantinos Katsovos is also critical of the charity Smile of the Child. He says that they have allowed no contact or communication between the couple and their lawyers and Maria. Nor have they released any information about Maria’s health and wellbeing to the couple."

------------------------------

"There has been no kidnapping, no robbery, no trafficking and no money changed hands,” says Katsavos.

Having given credit to you, ‘Bampots’, I likewise say both of you were right.

“Being responsible implies accountability to the remain camp…”

In this case, being responsible implies accountability, and more, to the electorate as a whole. The ‘remain camp’ = the referendum minority.

“…whereas duty implies an imperative to action with no quarter given to its execution?”

The above part of your sentence, with the ‘no’ taken out and a full stop substituted for ‘?’, is my answer. After all, the Old Palace of Westminster was good enough ‘quarters’ for those who decided, without a referendum, to execute a king. Surely the New Palace of Westminster is fitting enough for the PM to execute the will of the referendum majority now, don’t you think?

The PM’s responsibility for what he said to the electorate before and after the referendum necessarily gives rise to a duty to act in accordance with the outcome of the referendum. Were it not so, we would have a PM who says and does whatever he likes (which DC appears to have been doing), regardless of the view of the referendum majority to whose will he is constitutionally(?) and contractually (= being paid) duty-bound to submit. It’s like sitting down to play poker without being told that the cards are blank and the dealer decides what one’s hand is and whether one wins or loses. Refuse to play – and you are called a cheat or worse!

For as long as DC is the PM, the duty to implement Brexit is his. It is arguable (I think it must be argued) that in this case the PM’s surrendering, not delegating, his duty to whoever will have been elected to replace him in a couple of months = dereliction of his (the PM’s) duty. If this ‘=’ stands, then such dereliction of duty may be held to be an actionable offence. In any case, DC is and will remain in office until a successor is in place, and it is unclear why it is thought that he is entitled to carry on procrastinating, while still in office, with Article 50 TEU. Btw, a briefing paper on the process of leaving the EU is available from the House of Commons library. I have a paper copy but have only given it an occasional glance, and it is available on the internet, about 30 pages.

It may further be argued that there exists a contract between the PM and the electorate, and that ambiguity, if any, in the contract benefits the party that did not ‘draft’ it (the referendum majority in this case).

I am unable to comprehend what right DC himself had to decide on his resignation in the circumstances. The right to decide on such a momentous prime ministerial resignation must belong with the Parliament. ‘Catch 22’(?): we seem to be in a position to guess what decision they would be likely to make…

I hear it has been accepted by many as a fait accompli, that the duty in question is capable of being properly passed on to the next PM . And so it will go on…

Conclusion.

The electorate has listened to the PM. The PM remains duty-bound to listen to thedemocratic majority of the of those who voted in the referendum and, without further delay submit, as he said he would, to their expressed will. He hasn’t and doesn’t intend to so submit, I fear (perhaps he is too busy dealing).

I wish I will be proved wrong before I expire.

It must’ve become clear to you by now that I have failed where you have succeeded, ‘Bampots’, having distilled, so refreshingly, to just nine words that which I’ve rambled on about: “…its his shit and he should clean it up!”

An A-star to ‘Bampots’ for having said ‘it’ as ‘it’ is!

An A-star to Martin Roberts for everything he has written so well for so many!

Have a good day.

PS I hope not to have to do with my secretary as Martin has, allegedly, done with his…

Not too long ago the BBC (I think) broadcast 'An audience with Les Dawson', who happened to be dead, exploiting holographic technology. There should be little impediment therefore to Michael Gove having Margaret T as his guest speaker!

No need for Noakes. I have been a sceptic since way before Maastricht. The calamitous injustice of it all is, like a septic wound, clearly seen at the surface, without exposing a more complex backdrop.

Two overnight thoughts: The objective of the barons who painted King John into a corner at Runnymede was not universal suffrage for serfdom, but a demonstration that the King's power was not in fact absolute. At that negotiating table they held the 'whip hand'.

In a way now the barons speak for us, but does it look at all as if they are about to express King John's reluctant magnanimity? If the people are forced to adopt the same approach as their 'noble' forbears to curtailing the abuse of power, there could be dangerous times ahead.

Thought two: If the result of the UK referendum should ultimately be ignored by the government, and that same process of decision/collusion/rejection be repeated throughout Europe over time (in Holland, Sweden, France, say), wouldn't that be as absolute a confirmation as anyone might need of a conspiracy among the European political class?

I despair. If dressing like Coco the clown is to be taken as a sign of intellectual maturity, then this nation, already mortally wounded by the self-serving short-sightedness of previous generations of politicians, is on the verge of being unplugged from its respirator. Maybe Nicola Sturgeon can offer the face-paint fanatic a role as a banner waiving 'Braveheart' in support of her cause for a second referendum on Scottish Independence.

I am absolutely incredulous. Did none of these idealists notice yesterday's commemoration of the battle of the Somme? How many died there in the struggle for 'empire'? And that was just one battle! (Where was the German representative at Thiepval btw. Did they not suffer any casualties, or were invitations marked 'winners only'?)

We've already had VE Day, so the body count from WW2 can be quietly overlooked - another 60 million - again very largely on account of Imperious aspirations and associated militarism, to which German society as a whole turned a blind eye, because things were beginning to look rather better in their own back yard at the time.

Similarly, in the wake of 'Broken Britain', we believed the politicians' promise of a brighter future within the Common Market (Bloody Norah! That means we can afford to do the South of France instead of Skegness this year).

And so we now have mobilization of the masses, who no doubt felt their votes 'counted for nothing', as the cliché has it - the Europhiles, whose insistence on inclusivity is predicated upon a world view distorted by parochialism.

What will they say when their votes are no longer counted at all, never mind for nothing, and the EU army, saluting the stars and stripes, squares up to Russia on behalf of the USA and against the wishes of NATO. Bush and the Blairites managed to dispense with the UN after all.

Of course it may not come to that. Europe's 'defence spending' may first have to be allocated to quelling widespread civil unrest within its own borders (sorry, landmass, borders being a thing of the past by then).

Never mind. The wisdom of school leavers will no doubt carry us forward. Thankfully many of us will be leaving the train before it reaches the Cassandra crossing.

“Regressive liberal analysis. The Brexit was a peculiar combination of rejection of elitist economic policies and right wing nationalists (with racist elements). Painting the entire majority vote as right wing racism is ignorant, shallow propaganda. How can a post Reagan Thatcher paradigm be built under neoliberal policies of the EU? Regressive Liberals like the author skirt the issue with reliability.”

Theresa May, favourite to replace Mr Cameron as prime minister within the next two months, also voted in favour, telling doubters, “Remember September 11.”

Comment JoeDog

"I'm an American and I'll always be upset with Britain for going along with this. It helped provide Dorkus W. Dingle with political cover back home. Britain's on board!! It was painfully obvious this was bvllsh!t back in 2003. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter chased American intelligence all over Iraq and in each case they turned up NOTHING. WMDs aren't car keys. Hussein didn't drop his mustard gas beneath the sofa cushions. If they continually found nothing, then there's probably nothing there.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm upset with Britain's willingness to participate but we own it. The policy was set in Washington and the evidence was sexied up to match by people inside the White House. From that leaked Downing Street memo it's clear you knew this, too. I'm pretty sure I understand why the Bushies wanted this war. I have no idea why the Blair government also considered it a fine idea."

American bloggers were always hot for this story from the early days. Blogged under the general term, Downing Street Memo, they placed great store in it, unfortunately they seemed to be in ignorance of the workings of HMG.

Late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos 'the people' + -kratia 'power, rule'.

The word democracy came directly from French in the mid 16th century, but goes back to Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ and kratia ‘power, rule’. Demos is also the source of demagogue (mid 17th century) where it is combined with agōgos ‘leading’, and epidemic (early 17th century) which comes from epidēmia ‘the prevalence of disease’ which goes back to epi ‘upon’ and dēmos ‘the people’.

I'm reminded of a closing line from 'Shogun' (the TV version) uttered by the Samurai lord watching his English 'guest' from a hill-top above the beach, as the hapless sea captain tries to salvage the vessel that brought him unintentionally to 'the Japans', and which he hoped might carry him home again. As far as I can recall it:

'Go on. Rebuild your ship. And I shall burn it as I did the one before.'

The EU is a political Venus Fly Trap. It will only open to admit new victims not release earlier ones.

Janice Procter, whose son Michael Trench was one of the youngest British soldiers to die in Iraq when he was killed aged 18 in 2007, said: “It’s been horrendous, I’m very apprehensive about this. This man [Blair] has put 179 kids to the slaughter – there’s no justice. It [the report] is not going to give me any closure or comfort. I’m not going down on the day, I’m not going to waste two hours of my life reading it.”

"I will be with you whatever" was not said by Reg Keys to his son.....or even Kate to Maddy....it was Tony to Dubbya. When they took that leap of good faith Tony says the intelligence was flawed that helped make the decision. Oh and he would .....do it again....the decision was correct then if we follow the logic. It's a shame he seems to have forgotten what Hans Blix was screaming from the desert!!!

One thing I do believe is,Blair said he thinks about it every day......and that's more than likely correct as I don't doubt he could walk down a British street without someone shouting at him!

From your writings on the subject and from those by several other authors who have been looking in the same direction as yourself. If you know of a better way to learn about 7.7.05 or anything else for that matter, please do tell.

Would it be improper in the circumstances to ask, paraphrasing a recently departed comedienne: What attracted you to what I said?

A link to the 'several other authors who have been looking in the same direction' would have been quite sufficient.

Please do not be impolite to others, nor invoke my name to that end. I am not a model of wisdom, propriety or anything else.

Having boasted knowledge of a specific topic, your answer to requests for that knowledge should be to share it, not deliver a moral mini-sermon leading to 'why did you ask?' If you extend an invitation you shouldn't be surprised when people actually turn up!

But if you don't want them at your door, then don't make false promises.

..."He also used his political appeal to advance a lifelong commitment to children’s welfare.

A former secretary of the Refugee Children’s Fund, he set up, with Jonathan Aitken, a Parliamentary Den of the Good Bears of the World, providing teddies to children in hospital, and was later president of the Down’s Children Association."

I noticed a rumour elsewhere this a.m. that Theresa May could backtrack on article 50. Blair's got the Iraq war on his CV. I wonder if TM will be OK with civil war on hers?

The contentious 'Vote Leave' campaign bus btw represents an interesting test in the use of English. All that hair-pulling over the 'lie' about giving £350 million a week to the NHS when it didn't say that at all.

'We send the EU £350 million a week' is not an untrue statement, even if, eventually, the UK receives a rebate. Any commercial outfit that operates a rebate scheme should show the gross in its accounts.

Followed by: 'let's fund our NHS instead'. And why not? The second clause does not include the phrase 'to the tune of £350 million' nor the phrase 'among other things', although it is no less implicit.

A good copywriter will invite the reader to 'fill in the blanks'. So long as they don't themselves make any false statements misconceptions remain the property of the reader.

I don't know of anyone with bad teeth that has mounted a legal challenge to Colgate over its claims to 'fight decay' or any ageing ladies campaigning to stop the sale of skin creams that 'combat wrinkles'. (They can't, of course, because neither 'fighting' nor 'combat' guarantees a win).

The EU referendum (and concomitant 'Yes/No' vote) formed part of the Conservative manifesto prior to the General Election. The Conservatives were voted into government, implying the peoples acceptance of the choice to come.

David Cameron, speech to the House of Commons 27 Feb., 2016:

"..for a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would not just be wrong, it would be undemocratic."

DC's 'verbal contract' to accept the will of the people in this instance via observance of article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty WENT UNCHALLENGED BY PARLIAMENT at the time.

As I have commented elsewhere (at the Big TM I want to be PM Gallery), the Lisbon Treaty was signed prior to its being legally ratified in Parliament. Is an Act of Parliament now to be required in order merely to observe an individual provision (one of at least 50) of an already legally binding treaty - and given Parliament's prior tacet acceptance of such procedure's being inevitable in the event of a negative outcome from the EU referendum?

Your hearing is phonetically acute, but I think the vowel change is merely a product of his Scottish accent.

Examples from the antipodes (where the 'lingo' is known as 'Strine', i.e. Australian): The question, 'Emma Chizett' (How much is it?) and the song entitled, 'Big horse-cart major mine' (Because God made you mine).

I've just seen a lengthy comment apparently come and go. Maybe it's yours. I did not manage to digest it entirely, but noticed a few links at the close. I can only suggest you confine yourself to necessary commentary, i.e. the links and a few words. Overly long observations can be (and often are) filtered out as 'Spam'.

Again, from my earlier link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-result-not-legally-binding-lawyers-letter-a7129626.html) among the more recent comments, the words of the lady-in-waiting apparently:

"Well, I couldn’t be clearer. Brexit means Brexit. And we’re going to make a success of it. There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it by the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and as Prime Minister I will make sure that we leave the European Union." Theresa May, 11th of July, 2016.

'At one reception, she had Madeleine Albright dancing the boogaloo and, at another, Hillary Clinton and Cherie Blair turned up to speak on behalf of her charity for missing children...

...It was a fascinating period to be in Washington. The Monica Lewinsky scandal, the impeachment, September 11 and the build-up to the Iraq war all happened while the Meyers were there.

"American politics is like a drug - the more you get, the more you want," she says. "And it was fabulous to be British. People would make a beeline for me in shops to say how much they admired Tony Blair." She understands the tension between some parts of Europe and the United States over Iraq.'

Bootuful, bootiful, always keep an eye on the till though, love, while reminding the smelly that a woman is not a lady unless she is fragrant.

Catherine Meyer:“Negotiate with the EU and put the deal to the people. Best and fairest solution?”

Right you are, dear. “Best and fairest solution” it is! You don’t need to worry about those 17.000.000+ irredeemably lost souls, it’s “the people’, not the ignorant, you need to put “the deal” to.

Btw, love, why don’t you put your full CV and biographical details to those buggers, so that they know who they are dealing with, that would shut them up.

Christopher Meyer:"Hoping to see … (my wife) on … tonight on #Brexit."

You didn’t miss it, mate, did you? Anyways, Wiki says many in Washington had seen your missus in a miniskirt. Blimey, mate, the missus must’ve been a sight to behold in her late 40s! Blimey, mate, time has no dominion over the fragrant! Lucky man you are, mate, lucky… But then again, mate, such luck came with the job, didn’t it? And I guess, mate, you were wearing shorts at the time to complement your pride-and-joy’s attire. You’ve scored, mate, you’ve scored. Congrats!

“As we [Kate McCann and Fiona Payne] were walking up from the beach at about 5pm, I had a call from Cherie Blair, in her final days as wife of the prime minister (her husband Tony would announce his resignation two days later and leave office the following month). She was kind and helpful. She told me it was amazing but encouraging that Madeleine was still the first topic on the news every night. This was only five days after the abduction: as it turned out, our poor daughter would continue to headline the bulletins for some time to come. Cherie also warned me, ‘Whatever happens, your life will never be the same again.’ She mentioned that a friend of hers, Catherine Meyer, was the founder of PACT – Parents and Abducted Children Together - and said she would get in touch with her on my behalf. Doubtless I asked Cherie if there was anything the British government could offer the Portuguese in the way of resources to assist or expedite the search for Madeleine. It wasn’t my intention to make her feel uncomfortable by asking this, and I’m sure I didn’t. We were just so desperate I couldn’t let the opportunity go by.”

Cherie also warned me...

---------------------------------------------

They didn't give me any warningI have to take a gun and join the frayThey said that I must do their fightingBut I don't want to go away

NickiIf anyone could tell me what Brexit actually meant I might regard the Leavers' views as meaning something. But since they seem to be endowed with subhuman intelligence I guess I'm going to have to wait.

alias.foxfireIn one line you write off the majority of the UK population as having subhuman intelligence, but in the other you state you don't even understand what Brexit means haha. People like you are too dangerous to have a vote!

andyholmesOnly 26% of the UK population voted to leave the EU. That's not a majority.

Followers

Contributors

The Gor Blimey Hall of Fame

We aren’t writing about the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or any possible suspects: we don’t want to prejudice a legal process that is working in a most satisfactory way. - John Blacksmith

Read the Summers and Swan book if you want an impartial intelligent insight. It debunks conspiracy theorists amateur analysis - Jim Gamble

"I have seen no basis at any stage for challenging the integrity of the police."

Lord Justice Leveson - The Leveson Inquiry

We never take for granted the continued support and trust which Londoners feel for their Met.Bernard Hogan-Howe

Bush told reporters that “One day, people will look back at this moment in history and say, ‘Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come.’

George W Bush on Iraq 2008

"It is sad that we live in a time when a talented and honourable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons," Bush said in Crawford, Texas.

''The effects of radiation do not come to people that are happy and laughing. They come to people that are weak-spirited, that brood and fret.''

“I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.”

Bush interview 60 Minutes 1/14/07

“All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” – John Hagee

''Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country... we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years.

We were hoping that there would be a consideration of a payback because the United States right now is in close to a very serious economic crisis and we could certainly use some people to care about our situation as we have cared about theirs.''

Dana Rohrabacher (R) June 2011

''It's not natural for animals to eat each other, they have taken on the nature of Satan. What is natural for animals is to live in the way they were created in the Garden of Eden.''